RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Our Next Meeting

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hopefully I will get a chance to actually think about something 
sometime before our meeting tomorrow, but I ain't holdin ma breath. 
Somebody shoot me before I volunteer to do any more TC websites. Gag 
me with a spoon, Batman. Gack! Never, never, never, save as html in 
Word!

Ciao,
Rex

At 4:17 PM -0500 7/16/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>That didn't copy well.  I was adjusting the content model:
>
><!ELEMENT sign (sign*, signifier, signified+, referent) >
><!ATTRIBUTE sign
>   id ID #REQUIRED
>   type (symbol | icon | index) #REQUIRED >
>
>A signifier may be associated with multiple signifieds.
>That may be a place to put context modifiers.  But if
>type indicates a relationship between signifier and
>signified, does it apply to all of the possible
>signifieds?  If that is so, then we should go at
>this one again.  Even the most simple markup approach
>will not be easy past the first draft. ;-)  That
>is why I am deliberately not filling in more elements
>than this one, nor am I claiming it to be the root.
>
>Also, a sign and a signifier are essentially the same
>thing, yes, so we could drop that or use it as a
>container for representations (eg, refer to pictures
>of images) for cases where we know a sign can have
>multiple forms.
>
>Comments?
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


--